|
We already know that SOME hardcover, main-line, crunch heavy book is going to drop next year and we should almost certainly expect it to include another three of four Classes given the precedent that Paizo has been running with for, oh, nearly a decade now.
There are a number of discussions going on about is some Classes should be brought to PF2 from PF1, debates on what makes those concepts important or 'Iconic' enough to warrant a full Class, the flavor and mechanical role they should play, and even discussion about renaming them, but one thing sticks out to me; That being, we don't really have a great place to discuss which one is the MOST important to us on a personal level to prioritize as a must-have for the next Hardcover.
I'm going to list the various Classes that seem to be making the rounds in terms of the popular discussion and I would like to see if we can get a short-form answer from as many people as possible in regard to which ONE of them they personally want/need the most. Some of these are QUITE debatable whether they warrant an actual full Class but I will be including them if I recall seeing more than one person around here appealing for a full Class appearance of them.
-Arcanist
-Gunslinger/Drifter/Stranger/Whatever
-Inquisitor
-Kineticist
-Magus
-Medium
-Occultist
-Psychic
-Shaman
-Shifter
-Spiritualist
-Summoner
I'd like to keep post length to a minimum in regard to the discussion on WHY you feel the way you do and help make this a thread that exists to let Paizo know where their consumers stand (or at least those who participate here in the forums) on what concepts/Classes are the most important to get official support for.
Please pick ONE selection that you feel stands above the rest in terms of your desire to have it included ASAP.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
+1 Antiquarian
Gunslinger. Though Summoner runs a VERY close second. I wouldn't disagree with somehow putting both in the same playtest.
I really love the Magus class, and want to see it ASAP, but the Summoner and Gunslinger (more accurately, rules for firearms in general) take precedence.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
+1 for interesting Wizards.
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
+1 for interesting Wizards.
Not a new class. Wizard is already out. So this reply is just trolling
+1 Gunslinger/Drifter/Stranger/Whatever
What I think I'd most like to see is the Occultist (well, I'm also team it-should-be-called-Antiquarian). I think a martial with a true focus spell angle plus the design space offered by the various implements to be very interesting. The APG already contained the two classes I wanted most (Investigator and Swashbuckler - as I felt these classes felt terribly short of their potential in 1E and deserved a second shake), but Antiquarian is my second pick after that shared first spot.
What I see as most likely is the summoner. The summoner has a strong presence within Golarion, and offers a playstyle that's hinted at in previous material (through animal companions and summon spells) but hasn't really been explored to a deeper degree. I expect the summoner to function much like an animal-companion wielding ranger, only with the companion being the main focus and a majority of the class's feats being the various ways to alter and customise your summon. I don't expect spellcasting, rather I think this will be a focus caster with many ways to enhance the summon on the battlefield.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
As a class: +1 for summoner as I'm fond of the whole god caller concept.
As an archetype: Gunslinger (Uncommon). Maybe as a general archetype or a class archetype for the swashbuckler or something.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Kineticist, imo. Most unique playstyle to me
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As a class: +1 for summoner as I'm fond of the whole god caller concept.
As an archetype: Gunslinger (Uncommon). Maybe as a general archetype or a class archetype for the swashbuckler or something.
That's a good point. God callers were an interesting concept in 1E, but a rather meh archetype. And Sarkoris is rebuilding.
That's a good point. God callers were an interesting concept in 1E, but a rather meh archetype. And Sarkoris is rebuilding.As a class: +1 for summoner as I'm fond of the whole god caller concept.
As an archetype: Gunslinger (Uncommon). Maybe as a general archetype or a class archetype for the swashbuckler or something.
Also Lost Omens: Gods and Magic includes God Calling under 'Philosophies and Spirituality'(p.95) so I can certainly imagine the God Caller making a return in some form.
+1 on Drifter!
Summoner
Inquisitor
Magus
In a good magic book with interesting options.
+1 for magus
Magus>Summoner>Gunslinger>everything else
Gunslinger (or at least: guns, ideally through a two-page archetype instead of a class)
+1 to this. Gunslinger, if only because I want firearm support sooner rather than later.
+1 for Magus.
Then Kineticist, then Drifter.
+1 for Occultist or whatever you call it now.
Honorable Mention to Kineticist.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Gunslinger and it’s not close.
Bloodrager as a runner-up.
+1 Inquisitor
Kineticist as close second
+1 Magus
Then Inquisitor, Psychic, Shaman.
Magus
then the psionic / occult classes. (I expect these to come in a single book given how paizo wants to theme their books more)
+1 Magus, especially if it's multi tradition, and just covers all "blend" gishes.
E.g. whatever a perfect balance would look like in this system.
What's up with all this Drifter speculation?
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
What's up with all this Drifter speculation?
It is something cooked up exclusively on these boards to try a turn gunslinger into more than just a class that is “person who uses guns well”.
A class based on one type of weapon only seems to run counter to the 2E design style.
Gun use is seemingly widely considered as either a question of a general archetype or proficiency
The Drifter idea takes from the wandering mysterious stranger seen in gunslinger movies but considers how most of these are inspired by samurai stories . Even when not solo (see: magnificent seven)
So the idea is that what distinguishes the trope is NOT the gun in their hand but their style and demeanour. It is a nice idea especially for those of those not too fond of guns in both fantasy and the real world.
But it is more that it just gives the class a lot more identity. Something it arguably didn’t have in the first iteration
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
+1 Gunslinger, as a standalone class. As Gunslinger.
Summoner, Magus, and Inquisitor after that.
Gunslinger and it’s not close.
Bloodrager as a runner-up.
This surprises if not outright shocks me as your answer
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
+1 Gunslinger, I am okay if it's an archetype. But I want to be able to actually blend the use of guns with another class speciality, i.e. sneak attack, alchemist bombs, spells and so on.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Forgive the double post, but if I can ask: any thoughts why Gunslinger isn't/won't be rolled into the Swashbuckler, and be a specialty for our fun tricksy Deeds class?
This surprises if not outright shocks me as your answerGunslinger and it’s not close.
Bloodrager as a runner-up.
Why?
I like my fantasy to have a higher tech-level than the faux-medieval.
This surprises if not outright shocks me as your answerGunslinger and it’s not close.
Bloodrager as a runner-up.
Why?
I like my fantasy to have a higher tech-level than the faux-medieval.
Because you make a lot of posts about the oppression of minorities and native populations. Notably with regards to colonialism - and how the paizo APs reinforce these theme too much for your liking
A google search of “guns” and “colonialism” does not make for positive reading. They were always a pretty vital tool of the oppressor throughout history.
If there is a way of squaring that then I am interested to know. But that is off topic within this thread
I notice lots of people aren’t posting ONE as per the title
I’d go with a multi tradition Magus with some though going into how to make them really unique and not just “shocking grasp through a weapon”
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Forgive the double post, but if I can ask: any thoughts why Gunslinger isn't/won't be rolled into the Swashbuckler, and be a specialty for our fun tricksy Deeds class?
This is a good point. I think people are stuck of Grit and Panache being different because they were in the first edition . But perhaps it is because the ranged weapons might require such a big rewrite of the rules
Also the swashbuckler always gains panache through tumbling which doesn’t fit gunslinger
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
This surprises if not outright shocks me as your answerGunslinger and it’s not close.
Bloodrager as a runner-up.
Why?
I like my fantasy to have a higher tech-level than the faux-medieval.
Because you make a lot of posts about the oppression of minorities and native populations. Notably with regards to colonialism - and how the paizo APs reinforce these theme too much for your liking
A google search of “guns” and “colonialism” does not make for positive reading. They were always a pretty vital tool of the oppressor throughout history.
If there is a way of squaring that then I am interested to know. But that is off topic within this thread
And I would note that the Arcadians make better guns than anyone else in the setting, and that automatically assuming indigenous peoples are technologically inferior to colonizing oppressors is bad praxis ;p
+1 to Psychic to see how non-VS components are handled officially via Psychic Spellcasting in PF2 ASAP (extremely helpful for my Sorcerer homebrew fix).
Forgive the double post, but if I can ask: any thoughts why Gunslinger isn't/won't be rolled into the Swashbuckler, and be a specialty for our fun tricksy Deeds class?This is a good point. I think people are stuck of Grit and Panache being different because they were in the first edition . But perhaps it is because the ranged weapons might require such a big rewrite of the rules
Also the swashbuckler always gains panache through tumbling which doesn’t fit gunslinger
Sure it does! How many people in TV shows and movies do you see dodging and tumbling to avoid gunfire.
Medium
Psychic
Kineticist.
Sure it does! How many people in TV shows and movies do you see dodging and tumbling to avoid gunfire.Forgive the double post, but if I can ask: any thoughts why Gunslinger isn't/won't be rolled into the Swashbuckler, and be a specialty for our fun tricksy Deeds class?This is a good point. I think people are stuck of Grit and Panache being different because they were in the first edition . But perhaps it is because the ranged weapons might require such a big rewrite of the rules
Also the swashbuckler always gains panache through tumbling which doesn’t fit gunslinger
Kind of - except you can't currently use tumble to avoid ranged attacks in the game
And I would note that the Arcadians make better guns than anyone else in the setting, and that automatically assuming indigenous peoples are technologically inferior to colonizing oppressors is bad praxis ;pThis surprises if not outright shocks me as your answerGunslinger and it’s not close.
Bloodrager as a runner-up.
Why?
I like my fantasy to have a higher tech-level than the faux-medieval.
Because you make a lot of posts about the oppression of minorities and native populations. Notably with regards to colonialism - and how the paizo APs reinforce these theme too much for your liking
A google search of “guns” and “colonialism” does not make for positive reading. They were always a pretty vital tool of the oppressor throughout history.
If there is a way of squaring that then I am interested to know. But that is off topic within this thread
Has this moved on from being Luis Loza's unofficial lore to official lore?
And you are being obtuse since I was talking about the real world concept of colonialism and the subjugation of real work native people. I wasn't making assumptions about native people people in Golarion.
I was going off of what actually happened in North America, South America, Africa, South Asia and Australia. In terms of deadly and easy to use weaponry were the people of any of those regions superior to the European colonialists?